Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Germany 1, Krugman 0

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Germany 1, Krugman 0

    Props to the NYT for running this on the front page today

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/op...k.html?_r=1&hp

    Germany had the picture from the start, Britain is getting it and in the US Chris Christie is leading the charge on facing fiscal realities.
    Ute-ī sunt fīmī differtī

    It can't all be wedding cake.

  • #2
    Interesting article. I think this is probably a reasonable compramise. I had never heard of the 1982 SOTUS opinion before. It will be fascinating to watch this play out.

    I may be small, but I'm slow.

    A veteran - whether active duty, retired, or national guard or reserve is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to, "The United States of America ", for an amount of "up to and including my life - it's an honor."

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by happyone View Post
      Interesting article. I think this is probably a reasonable compramise. I had never heard of the 1982 SOTUS opinion before. It will be fascinating to watch this play out.
      Yeah - that 1982 decision (with its inadequate defense of its language) has had some disproportionate on the current debate.
      Ute-ī sunt fīmī differtī

      It can't all be wedding cake.

      Comment


      • #4
        Jus soli is the American Way. I will protest any change to that Amendment.
        "Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by oxcoug View Post
          Props to the NYT for running this on the front page today

          http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/op...k.html?_r=1&hp

          Germany had the picture from the start, Britain is getting it and in the US Chris Christie is leading the charge on facing fiscal realities.
          The last thing Krugman will ever do is admit that he's wrong. He'll simply point out that Germany isn't like the US in that Germany has historically operated at a trade surplus while the US has been running at a trade deficit for decades.

          Of course, what will be left out of Krugman's distinguishing between Germany and the US to prop up his own lame dogged Keynesian policies is that Krugman has consistently claimed that the American economy of the 80s, 90s and 00s was shitty and the economy 1970s was fantastic. Guess when the US trade deficit really started ballooning? (In other words, Germany's trade surplus is indicative of the good ol' days that Krugman has been pining for).

          Krugman has proven time and again to be an inflexible, political hack. He's never just wrong, it's only a distinguishable event. I'm not sure how anyone can call the roughly 20 year period between 1984 and 2004 a total economic failure with a straight face like Krugman does. It was a time of extraordinary economic expansion. Unfortunately the nuttiness that started around the last couple years of that 20 year period has created the economic disaster that we're now dealing with.

          But just consider this- what would have happened if interest only and neg. am. loans were simply never allowed or they had never been originated in massive amounts up until around 2007? It's likely the recession would have been mild (if we had one at all) and Krugman couldn't make his bullshit argument about Bush-Reagan-Graham-Gingrich, etc. laid the seeds for this current economic mess. Am I to believe the economy between 1993 and 1997 (pre internet bubble and a decade before the housing bubble) was worse than the economy of the 1970s?
          Part of it is based on academic grounds. Among major conferences, the Pac-10 is the best academically, largely because of Stanford, Cal and UCLA. “Colorado is on a par with Oregon,” he said. “Utah isn’t even in the picture.”

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by wuapinmon View Post
            Jus soli is the American Way. I will protest any change to that Amendment.

            Oops well it looks like I misplaced a response on the birthright question from the OTHER article I posted under the Krugman article - but since you've responded here wuap.....

            I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean when you say jus soli is "the American way" - it's certainly the Modern American Distortion of the intended meaning what was laid down in 1868 - but as Schuck and others clearly demonstrate, no one involved in 1868 had any notion that their language would later be used to justify something as ridiculous and obviously problematic as the anchor baby phenomenon.

            And as the legislation itself makes clear - people outside of America's jurisdiction are explicitly excluded from its meaning.

            Jus soli is not anything like "the American Way."
            Ute-ī sunt fīmī differtī

            It can't all be wedding cake.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Color Me Badd Fan View Post
              Krugman has proven time and again to be an inflexible, political hack.
              This is all you needed to say. Everything else was just excessive superfluity. (Just like the previous sentence.)
              "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill


              "I only know what I hear on the news." - Dear Leader

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by oxcoug View Post
                Oops well it looks like I misplaced a response on the birthright question from the OTHER article I posted under the Krugman article - but since you've responded here wuap.....

                I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean when you say jus soli is "the American way" - it's certainly the Modern American Distortion of the intended meaning what was laid down in 1868 - but as Schuck and others clearly demonstrate, no one involved in 1868 had any notion that their language would later be used to justify something as ridiculous and obviously problematic as the anchor baby phenomenon.

                And as the legislation itself makes clear - people outside of America's jurisdiction are explicitly excluded from its meaning.

                Jus soli is not anything like "the American Way."
                So legislators in 1868 had no idea that we would one day have an issue related to illegal immigration, so we need to try and understand their decisions through a modern lens, yet we shouldn't look through a modern lens when it comes to things like gay marriage?

                (I'm not targeting you specifically, ox, as I don't recall if you're an originalist. I'm asking a general question in the direction of no one in specific.)
                Visca Catalunya Lliure

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Tim View Post
                  So legislators in 1868 had no idea that we would one day have an issue related to illegal immigration, so we need to try and understand their decisions through a modern lens, yet we shouldn't look through a modern lens when it comes to things like gay marriage?

                  (I'm not targeting you specifically, ox, as I don't recall if you're an originalist. I'm asking a general question in the direction of no one in specific.)

                  Tim I can't see the parallel you seem to be reaching for on this one.

                  It doesn't take a "modern lens" to realize that unchecked, unqualified birthright citizenship is (a) entirely nonsensical (there's a reason that no country in the world with comparable immigration challenges has a similar policy) in that it provides a wide array of perverse incentives and creates huge costs for the state w/o creating any benefits for the state and (b) that it had nothing to do with what the people who passed the 14th amendment intended.

                  So no "modern lens" really need here - just common sense.

                  As for gay marriage - I see no reason a modern lens can't be applied. But applied to what? (Separate conversation btw, not really parallel).
                  Ute-ī sunt fīmī differtī

                  It can't all be wedding cake.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by oxcoug View Post
                    Tim I can't see the parallel you seem to be reaching for on this one.

                    It doesn't take a "modern lens" to realize that unchecked, unqualified birthright citizenship is (a) entirely nonsensical (there's a reason that no country in the world with comparable immigration challenges has a similar policy) in that it provides a wide array of perverse incentives and creates huge costs for the state w/o creating any benefits for the state and (b) that it had nothing to do with what the people who passed the 14th amendment intended.

                    So no "modern lens" really need here - just common sense.

                    As for gay marriage - I see no reason a modern lens can't be applied. But applied to what? (Separate conversation btw, not really parallel).
                    As noted, my response was aimed toward the originalists among us. I guess you're not one of them.
                    Visca Catalunya Lliure

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by oxcoug View Post
                      Oops well it looks like I misplaced a response on the birthright question from the OTHER article I posted under the Krugman article - but since you've responded here wuap.....

                      I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean when you say jus soli is "the American way" - it's certainly the Modern American Distortion of the intended meaning what was laid down in 1868 - but as Schuck and others clearly demonstrate, no one involved in 1868 had any notion that their language would later be used to justify something as ridiculous and obviously problematic as the anchor baby phenomenon.

                      And as the legislation itself makes clear - people outside of America's jurisdiction are explicitly excluded from its meaning.

                      Jus soli is not anything like "the American Way."
                      Authorial intention when writing law is of no interest to me. I care about what is written, not what the person who wrote it was thinking but didn't explain clearly and succinctly. "All former slaves" is not the same thing as "All persons born or naturalized in the United States." Subject to the jurisdiction thereof.....we don't have a Waziristan here anymore (Oklahoma). Everyone on US soil is subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

                      Republicans are pushing their own elephant up the stairs here.

                      TIA.
                      "Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Color Me Badd Fan View Post
                        The last thing Krugman will ever do is admit that he's wrong. He'll simply point out that Germany isn't like the US in that Germany has historically operated at a trade surplus while the US has been running at a trade deficit for decades.

                        Of course, what will be left out of Krugman's distinguishing between Germany and the US to prop up his own lame dogged Keynesian policies is that Krugman has consistently claimed that the American economy of the 80s, 90s and 00s was shitty and the economy 1970s was fantastic. Guess when the US trade deficit really started ballooning? (In other words, Germany's trade surplus is indicative of the good ol' days that Krugman has been pining for).

                        Krugman has proven time and again to be an inflexible, political hack. He's never just wrong, it's only a distinguishable event. I'm not sure how anyone can call the roughly 20 year period between 1984 and 2004 a total economic failure with a straight face like Krugman does. It was a time of extraordinary economic expansion. Unfortunately the nuttiness that started around the last couple years of that 20 year period has created the economic disaster that we're now dealing with.

                        But just consider this- what would have happened if interest only and neg. am. loans were simply never allowed or they had never been originated in massive amounts up until around 2007? It's likely the recession would have been mild (if we had one at all) and Krugman couldn't make his bullshit argument about Bush-Reagan-Graham-Gingrich, etc. laid the seeds for this current economic mess. Am I to believe the economy between 1993 and 1997 (pre internet bubble and a decade before the housing bubble) was worse than the economy of the 1970s?
                        In defense of Krugman... he isn't just an academic. While he lacks real world experience like running a company he once was an adviser to Enron to help them build their image. He also seems to be a pink floyd fan.

                        He is also well respected by his peers. For example, Robert Barro, the distinguished Harvard economist, said that Krugman "just says whatever is convenient for his political argument. He doesn't behave like an economist. And the guy has never done any work in Keynesian macroeconomics, which I actually did. He has never even done any work on that. His work is in trade stuff. He did excellent work, but it has nothing to do with what he's writing about."

                        Someone has to defend the man.
                        Last edited by Uncle Ted; 08-15-2010, 07:58 AM.
                        "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
                        "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
                        "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
                        GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ted Nugent View Post
                          In defense of Krugman... he isn't just an academic. While he lacks real world experience like running a company he once was an adviser to Enron to help them build their image. He also seems to be a pink floyd fan.

                          He is also well respected by his peers. For example, Robert Barro, the distinguished Harvard economist, said that Krugman "just says whatever is convenient for his political argument. He doesn't behave like an economist. And the guy has never done any work in Keynesian macroeconomics, which I actually did. He has never even done any work on that. His work is in trade stuff. He did excellent work, but it has nothing to do with what he's writing about."

                          Someone has to defend the man.

                          If CUF indulged anything as fratty as "POTD" I'd give you my vote.
                          Ute-ī sunt fīmī differtī

                          It can't all be wedding cake.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Tim View Post
                            So legislators in 1868 had no idea that we would one day have an issue related to illegal immigration, so we need to try and understand their decisions through a modern lens, yet we shouldn't look through a modern lens when it comes to things like gay marriage?

                            (I'm not targeting you specifically, ox, as I don't recall if you're an originalist. I'm asking a general question in the direction of no one in specific.)
                            I think the originalist reply would be that it's not understanding their decisions through a modern lens but fixing the unintended consequences of the amendment. It's that the intent of Congress and the states after the Civil War was to correct Dred Scott, not make it so that the children of illegal immigrants would become citizens.
                            Not that, sickos.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by wuapinmon View Post
                              Authorial intention when writing law is of no interest to me. I care about what is written, not what the person who wrote it was thinking but didn't explain clearly and succinctly. "All former slaves" is not the same thing as "All persons born or naturalized in the United States." Subject to the jurisdiction thereof.....we don't have a Waziristan here anymore (Oklahoma). Everyone on US soil is subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

                              Republicans are pushing their own elephant up the stairs here.

                              TIA.

                              Wuap if you want to be the guy who says "LAH! LAH! LAH! I can't HEAR you" when authorial intent (AKA - the actual meaning of the law) comes up, then at least acknowledge what the LETTER of it actually says - it says "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which explicitly excluded several groups at the time and was emphatically understood to do so.

                              The notion that the 14th amendment was meant to be universally inclusive of every individual born on American soil doesn't just reject "authorial intent" but the actual applications of the amendment that followed after 1868. The shift is rather difficult to explain, a bit like the Church on blacks and the priesthood, there isn't ever a "doctrinal" moment that justifies it in relation to the 14th (as Krugman points out, the 1982 SCOTUS language fails to provide any justification).

                              So we're not just talking about authorial intent - we're talking about real live application. Universal inclusion in birthright citizenship is flatout contradicted by both the language and the application of the 14th amendment.
                              Ute-ī sunt fīmī differtī

                              It can't all be wedding cake.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X